There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Uber Genius]

You're confused.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine. You have not met it.

Look up the word "Epistemology," and then "what is the difference between knowledge claims and belief?"

30 seconds of research will eliminate your parroting NEw Atheist propaganda.

 

[bhsmte]

Look up the word "Epistemology," and then "what is the difference between knowledge claims and belief?"

30 seconds of research will eliminate your parroting NEw Atheist propaganda.

You can claim personal knowledge till the cows come home. For you personally, that is cool. If you actually want to demonstrate this knowledge to others, you do have the burden of proof.

 

[Uber Genius]

Since our atheist friends seem reticent to respond with an argument or anything other than propaganda I have gone ahead and given one of dozens of arguments for atheism.

Trying to prove the non-existence of something inductively runs into the knowledge claim limitation articulated by Hume (although he consistently violated his own advise), known as the problem of induction. Instead one attempts to show deductively that one of the necessary properties of a divine being are impossible to obtain.

Here is an example from Sobel's (Logic and Theism, pp. 370ff.)

The primary argument from the impossibility of a set of the reflective parts of an omniscient’s knowledge
Premises
* (1) There is for every knower a set that contains precisely the propositions that this knower knows. 

* (2) An omniscient knower would know every true proposition. 

* (3) (The Power Set Axiom) There is, for every set S, a power set Pow(S) 
that is the set of all subsets of S. 

* (4) (True Propositions About Subsets of Sets of Known Propositions) For 
every knower and every set K composed of propositions known to him, for each member K′ of the power set Pow(K) of K there is a true propo- sition kn(K′) that of him and of K′ says precisely that he knows each of its members;2 and, for any distinct members K′ and K′′ of Pow(K), any proposition, kn(K′), that of him and of K′ says precisely that he knows each of its members, is distinct from any proposition kn(K′′) that of him and of K′′ says precisely that he knows each of its members.
Now comes a lemma that presupposes (3).

(5) (Cantor’s Theorem) The power set Pow(S) of any set S contains more things than does that set S: That is, Pow(S) is of greater cardinality than is S.

Conclusion
(6) There is not an omniscient being.

For a deduction of (6), suppose for purposes of an indirect proof that, contrary to (6), there is an omniscient being O. Then there is a set CK (for ‘complete knowledge’) that contains precisely the propositions that O knows: (1). The set CK has a power set Pow(CK): (3). CK includes for each member K of Pow(CK) a proposition to the effect that O knows each proposition in K, where each such proposition is distinct from every other: By (4) there is for each K such a true proposition, and they are distinct, and by (2), O knows each since each is true. So CK contains at least as many propositions as there are sets of propositions in its power set Pow(CK). But CK does not contain at least as many propositions as there are sets of propositions in its power set Pow(CK), since, if it did, its cardinality would be greater than it is, by Cantor’s Theorem, and no set is of greater cardinality than it is. The emphasized contradiction completes an indirect proof for (6). (An appendix expands on items in boldface and gives a diagonal-argument for Cantor’s Theorem.) This argument elaborates one that would demonstrate the impossibility of “even a nonomniscient being of a certain sort” (Grim 1991, p. 95). If sound, my argument shows inter alia that no being can have complete knowledge of its knowledge. If sound, it shows not only that complete knowledge, but that complete introspective knowledge, is impossible.

For more discussion see:

https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=5578a13b5dbbbd1b118b4582&assetKey=AS:273793950388227@1442288973363


 

[Moral Orel]

One attempts to show deductively that one of the necessary properties of a divine being are impossible to obtain *snip* Conclusion
(6) There is not an omniscient being.

A divine being doesn't have to be omniscient.

 

[Uber Genius]

Stil another approach atheist could take is to highlight the recalcitrant facts of the external world given a God.

1. If a perfedt being exists,then that being is omnipotent,omniscient, and perfectly good sole creator of the universe. 

2. If a perfect being exists, then it prefers worlds that contain free agents and no moral evil to worlds that contain free agents and moral evil. 

3. Ifaperfectbeingexists,then,ifitchoosestomakeaworldthatcontains 
free agents, it can choose to make a world that contains free agents 
and no moral evil. 

4. There is moral evil in the world. 

5. (Hence) There is no perfect being. 

Graham Oppy, (Arguing About God's p.262)

For more see:

http://manorfarmstorage.com/library/download/asin=0521122643&type=full#page271

 

[Moral Orel]

1. If a perfedt being exists *snip* (Hence) There is no perfect being.

A deity doesn't have to be perfect.

 

[Uber Genius]

We need an explanation for the belief there was no space, no time, no matter, and no energy.

Standard inflationary model of cosmogony (Alan Guth developed in early 1980s and excepted as de riguer by every cosmologist at every university as standard model.

IN 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

Again, a 30-second internet search could have allowed you to answer your own question.

Of course some out here have a method of just asking an infinite series of questions as if the premises were in doubt. It doesn't confuse educated people but it sure makes the questioner seem smart to those who haven't had the benefit of education.

These apologetic CF threads make me feel as if I am living some Orwellian Animal farm production. "Atheists SMART, Theists stupid." Followed by "winner" accolades.

 

[Uber Genius]

Every non-Christian had to make a post of signature and agreement before being allowed to post in this subforum. This included a repeat of their agreement to the Forum rules.

I guess such a post was not considered necessary for the Christian members, most likely because the administration of this board thought all "Christians" would of course agree to follow to the rules that a Christian Forums set up.

But I think you might want to read these rules again. Just in case.


No need. I had modified before reading you post.

That said, propaganda is always manipulation. And not engaging claims and using rhetorical flourish in place of cogent arguments is what I have been inveighing against.

That is why I have posted more resources and arguments in support of atheism than you and all other atheists combined on this thread!

And you might also want to read up on logic again. This is not how it works.

So no engagement, no response, no defeaters!

No demonstration that the law of the undistributed middle couldn't apply. Just a blanket statement.

Sad. Propaganda again? No attempt to learn anything? Frustrating.

Please actually read my post and engage the material.

If you have any real objections about the law of the undistributed middle term and its relation to other syllogistic fallacies by all means point them out.

You are about to trample a 2300 year knowledge base dating back to Aristotle, but by all means swing away!

 

[Freodin]

So no engagement, no response, no defeaters!

No demonstration that the law of the undistributed middle couldn't apply. Just a blanket statement.

Sad. Propaganda again? No attempt to learn anything? Frustrating.

Please actually read my post and engage the material.

If you have any real objections about the law of the undistributed middle term and its relation to other syllogistic fallacies by all means point them out.

You are about to trample a 2300 year knowledge base dating back to Aristotle, but by all means swing away!

It's quite simple. Your usage of the fallacy of the undistributed middle was correct... the problem is your attribution of the premises and the distribution of the connection attribute.

This is what you responded to:
"An atheist is someone who doesn't answer 'yes' to the question 'do you believe in god(s)?'"

So the syllogism is, contrary to what you posted:
P1: Everyone who is not answering 'yes' to the question 'do you believe in god(s)?' is an atheist.
P2: Agnostics do not answer 'yes' to this question.
A: Agnostics are atheists.

In this nice Venn diagramm you posted, it shouldn't be about the cut set of "atheists" and "agnostics", but about "agnostics" being a subset of "atheists".

The fallacy of the undistributed middle simply does not apply here.

Sorry to have destroyed your view of 2300 years of logic, Aristotle and set theory... but it doesn't work the way you did it.

 

[variant]

We need an explanation for the belief there was no space, no time, no matter, and no energy.

It's exceedingly hard to rule out potential energy from any state.

 

[variant]

Standard inflationary model of cosmogony (Alan Guth developed in early 1980s and excepted as de riguer by every cosmologist at every university as standard model.

IN 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

Again, a 30-second internet search could have allowed you to answer your own question.

Of course some out here have a method of just asking an infinite series of questions as if the premises were in doubt. It doesn't confuse educated people but it sure makes the questioner seem smart to those who haven't had the benefit of education.

These apologetic CF threads make me feel as if I am living some Orwellian Animal farm production. "Atheists SMART, Theists stupid." Followed by "winner" accolades.

Nothing here about a zero energy state universe though. The idea you are referencing says the universe as it exists had a beginning, not say, that it lacked energy at any point.

There needs to be a "before" the universe for your idea to make sense, which is not shown by the universe beginning.

What you're referencing though is not "settled science" exactly:

Cosmic Questions - Guth: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Guth calls it an open question.

Please stop mischaracterizing the professionals.

 

[cloudyday2]

I haven't read this entire thread, but the strongest argument I have seen for atheism is Occam's Razor. Apparently a mathematical case can be made for Occam's Razor, so it is more than a heuristic.

Basically most normal people agree on science and similar topics taught as fact in school. Theists want to add their religious claims to the body of knowledge. Atheists ask how adding these religious claims increases the explanatory power of the secular body of knowledge. Theists have no good answer, so their claims are rejected by Occam's Razor.

(Not sure if that is "logical" as opposed to critical thinking.)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Look up the word "Epistemology,"

Just because you learned a new word last week doesn't mean the rest of us are that far behind.

and then "what is the difference between knowledge claims and belief?"

If the OP wants to present a positive case, then the burden of proof is their's, and your point is irrelevant.

If the OP does not, then the burden of proof is a non-issue in any case, since no one is making a knowledge claim, and your point is irrelevant.

30 seconds of research will eliminate your parroting NEw Atheist propaganda.

Three seconds of thoughtful introspection will eliminate your need to post smug and vacuous jabs at people.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So children, and agnostic who have no knowledge one way or the other are now called atheists.

(A)theism is not about knowledge. It's about beliefs.
And anyone who doesn't have positive beliefs in claims of theism, is not a theist. When you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

It's not rocket science.

Having said that, nobody has knowledge about anything supernatural.
Knowledge is demonstrable.

This is an old atheist trick invented by none other than Antony Flew (whom I'm sure you are unfamiliar with so don't bother telling me about your unbounded ignorance).

There's no trick. There's only you either have positive beliefs in supernatural things, or you do not. (a)gnosticism is about knowledge and (a)theism is about beliefs in supernatural things and god(s).

Fallacy of the undistributed middle (Technical Response to the post-modern proposal by New Atheists to equivocate the terms, "Atheism," and "Agnostic").

There is only one person here who is equivocating between these two concepts, and that is YOU.

I am one of the people who recognises the difference between both. As in: one is about KNOWLEDGE and the other is about BELIEFS. And they are NOT mutually exclusive.

P1 -All Russians are revolutionaries
P2 - All anarchists are revolutionaries
A - Therefore all anarchists are Russians.

The middle term is 'revolutionaries." While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionaries, making both premises true, there may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that all anarchists are the same as Russians in every way.

Great. It has nothing to do with atheism and agnosticism. These complement eachother, they aren't mutually exclusive. At best, one is a qualifier of the other.

Now let's examine the redefinition of "Atheism," from a claim that there is no god(s) to a lack of belief in god(s).

a-theism
Without-theism.

There is no redefining.

P1 - All agnostics lack the belief in god(s)
P2 - All atheists lack the belief in god(s)
A - All atheists are agnostics.

I disagree with P1.

You can be agnostic about god (ie: you don't know or even consider it knowable) while also believing god exists.

Considering how god and the supernatural is usually defined as literally BEING "unknowable" (unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable,...), it follows that, as far as those definitions go, EVERYONE is agnostic concerning such god(s).

Since P1 is not correct, the rest can be discarded.

P1 - All agnostics make no knowledge claims (this premise is also false but work with my assumption)
P2 - burden of proof rests on those making knowledge claims
P3 - All atheists are agnostics
A - Therefore (from 1,2,3) atheists have no burden of proof

Again incorrect.

Atheists have no burden of proof concerning god claims, because it's the theist that makes the god claim. So the theist has a burden of proof concerning those claims.

I, as an atheist, don't accept those claims for the simple reason that I'm unaware of any theist being capable of meeting that burden of proof.

My atheism isn't defined by a claim about anything.
It is only defined as a single position on a single issue.
That issue being: the claim of theism.

Why is this so hard for you folks to understand?

I don't get it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since our atheist friends seem reticent to respond with an argument or anything other than propaganda I have gone ahead and given one of dozens of arguments for atheism.

Atheism doesn't require an "argument".

There is nothing there to argue about.

 

[Uber Genius]

An atheist is someone who doesn't answer 'yes' to the question 'do you believe in god(s)?'"

So rinse and repeat?

Really.

I did get the logic right or didn't? I'm confused. You have made both claims.

Why should I except a nonstandard definition that I have described in detail as being incoherent?

Propaganda.

 

[Uber Genius]

Atheism doesn't require an "argument".

There is nothing there to argue about.

So still haven't spent 30 seconds looking up the difference between belief and knowledge.

The atheist were supposed to be the bastions of reason against foolish and intellectually bereft Christians. Yet I can't get a single atheist out here who will do 30-seconds of research.

I just get a stream of propaganda.

So far the Christian is the only one on this thread to provide any arguments in support of the atheistic knowledge claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheism doesn't require an "argument".

There is nothing there to argue about.

Sure there is something to "argue" about, because what Christians are doing specifically (and not as basic theists do) is to prompt those who are not yet Christian to consider the veracity of accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The atheism/theism issue is just a side-note for Christians, at least it should be. And in which case, atheists do have something to argue over: i.e. why they don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, along with explaining why they deny that the Bible and the presence of Jewish people and/or Christian people 'count' as some form of evidence(s) ...

 

[Uber Genius]

Since the atheist/seekers are struggling to understand the difference between "Knowing" and "Beleiving" and seem unmotivated to invest even 30 seconds on research any claims, I continue to do their homework for them.

See 2:40 in this short video on epistemology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since the atheist/seekers are struggling to understand the difference between "Knowing" and "Beleiving" and seem unmotivated to invest even 30 seconds on research any claims, I continue to do their homework for them.

See 2:40 in this short video on epistemology.

...but Uber, don't you know that math and science "works" and that is all the knowledge we need?